CLASSIFICATION OF BUILDINGS

OF ORAN CITY (ALGERIA) BASED ON THEIR

SEISMIC VULNERABILITY

A. SENOUCI & M. A. TAIBI & D.NEDJAR & A. RAMDANE University of Sciences and Technology of Oran_ USTO-MB, Algeria; GEOREN -Univ. Es-

Senia

P.Y. BARD ISTERRE, Joseph Fourier - Grenoble 1 University, France

M.N. FARSI National Earthquake Engineering Centre (CGS), Algeria

E. BECK & S. CARTIER PACTE UMR 5194 CNRS, Joseph Fourier - Grenoble 1 University, France

SUMMARY: The exposition of Algerian towns to earthquakes raises a number of issues related to the urbanization of

territories in earthquake-prone areas and also to the maintenance of the existent urban fabric. In particular, the

assessment of the actual seismic risk and of the vulnerability of the existing building stock is a key information

in view of setting up priorities in a long term prevention policy. The current standard method in the Euro-

Mediterranean area is the RISK-EU approach, and more specifically its first "macroseismic" level, which is

essentially based on the building typology. The aim of the present study is to provide the first elements in view

of assessing the seismic risk in the city of Oran. This has been achieved through an investigation of the building

typology inside a sample "intramural city" perimeter by exterior visual screening along itineraries. In addition to

the identification of the main building types, it also allowed to gather information of the additional vulnerability

parameters as listed in the RISK-EU method. The results indicate rather high vulnerability indexes for both

masonry and RC buildings, due to a number of aggravating factors which could be identified for each building

typology. This preliminary study lays the ground for further investigations both in the whole greater Oran area,

and for damage estimates in the case of various scenario earthquakes.

Keywords: urban vulnerability , seismic risk, typology, pre-existent buildings.

1. INTRODUCTION

Several large scale vulnerability assessment methods are now available. These methods first appeared

during the seventies in Japan and in the USA, then in the eighties in Italy. Since then, these methods

have known a worldwide expansion that resulted in a multiplicity of methods and regional variants

(CETE, 2008). The city of Oran in northern Algeria is exposed to moderate to strong seismic hazard,

as witnessed by the 1790 earthquake, the strongest earthquake in the known history, with an estimated

intensity between IX and X (Manuel López Marinas and Salord, 2001). A recent microzonation study

(CGS, 2010) indicates peak acceleration levels from 0.34 to 0.48 g for return periods of 200 and 475

years, respectively, which significantly exceed the design values recommended by the RPA99/2003

seismic code, ranging between 0.15 and 0.25 g according to the building use. Though debated, such a

high hazard level compels to address the issue of the seismic risk and the probable level of damages in

case of a large nearby event. Large scale vulnerability evaluation methods, despite their high level of

approximation and uncertainties, present the advantage to provide a first estimate at the city or urban

district scale when only limited resources (manpower, funding) are available. In addition, any urban

renewal project must incorporate the seismic constraint to ensure a sustainable development, .

2. THE CONCEPT OF TYPE IN VULNERABILITY EVALUATION METHODS

The use of building typology in the evaluation of seismic intensity has been implicitly endorsed since

the beginning of the macroseismic scales. Intensity evaluation in post-seismic surveys refers to

building damages. The ATC13 approach (ATC, 1985) was amongst the first ones to explicitly base the

vulnerability assessment on the definition of a typology. In Western Europe, the first systematic

approach was the Italian GNDT method, which proposed to evaluate a "vulnerability index" from a

weighted combination of eleven parameters that have to be gathered for each building. GNDT did not

make use of any explicit typological classification; it was however later adapted and modified for the

3-level VULNERALP approach by (Guéguen et al., 2007), who introduced the use of the EMS98

typology to replace some quantitative information on the structural system, by a more qualitative, but

standardized one. Actually, the EMS98 macroseismic scale has been an important step as it contains a

"qualitative" model of vulnerability which gave birth to the RISK-EU method.

The RISK-EU LM1 method, also known as macroseismic method, was elaborated to be an European

standard (Milutinovic and Trendafiloski, 2003). Lagormasino and Giovinazzi made an essential

contribution to the development of this method (Giovinazzi and Lagomarsino, 2004), by translating

the implicit model contained in EMS98 into a vulnerability assessment model. It is based essentially

on the typology through a basic index V* and its modulation by modifying factors (Vm) considering

different aspects varying from one building to another (resisting system quality, regularity...etc).

Although typological indices are estimated for all types of constructions, RISK-UE provides the

values of the modifying factors only for masonry and reinforced concrete buildings, which are by far

the most common construction types in the Euro-Mediterranean area. The value of a modifying factor

Vm is negative for favorable elements that contribute to decrease the vulnerability, and positive for

unfavorable elements. The final vulnerability index V is the sum of the base index V*, a regional

vulnerability modification ∆Vr, and these modifying factors ∆Vm. It should in addition remain in a

range [V���;V��] specified for each building typology (Milutinovic and Trendafiloski, 2003).

�� = �∗ + ��� + ��� (2.1)

3. TYPOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATION

The foundation of the city of Oran dates back officially to 902; rare however are the still existing

housing buildings that are older than the French occupation starting in 1831 (Lespès, 2003). The old

city, also called "the low city", leans against the West side of the Murdjadjo mountain and spreads in

the small valley of Oued R'Hi. The urban area considered for the present study does not include this

very old part, but includes buildings from both the French occupation area and the great urban

extension which began in the early eighties of the 20th century (Lespès, 2003). This extension gave

rise to the "upper city" on the vast and quasi-flat or only gently sloping area provided by the plateau of

Oran. The older buildings in this urban sprawl use masonry bearing walls and metallic floor joists

(steel-joists). The bearing walls are usually about 50 cm thick, and consist mainly of tuffo-limestone

stones with variable degree of friability, and sometimes of sandstone or limestone, a more

consolidated material. A second construction phase is marked by the introduction of reinforced

concrete elements in the floors, while masonry was kept for the walls. The third phase, starting in the

thirties, saw the emergence of reinforced concrete buildings and the fifties were marked by the first

social housing projects ("HLM"). After a pause in the first two decades following the independence

(1962-1980), the construction boomed in the 80s and 90s with many new RC frame buildings and the

reconstruction of existing buildings, with vertical or horizontal extensions.

The classification of buildings in the city of Oran has been limited here to in the "intramural"

area. The itinerary method along a number of streets as displayed on Fig. 1, was adopted to provide a

representative sample.

Figure 1. Area of the typological inventory of the "intramural" city of Oran and surveyed itinerary.

Table 1. Typological distribution of the building sample

Type Description Number % Subtotal (%)

Masonry 71,49%

M1.1 rubble stone 16 2,1%

M3.3 Composite steel and masonry slabs 437 58,5%

M3.4 Reinforced concrete slabs 81 10,8%

Reinforced concrete 28,4%

RC1 Irregular frames 189 25,3%

RC2 Regular infilled walls ( regular structure) 23 3,1%

Wood 0,1%

W Wood structure 1 0,1%

Total 747 100,0% 100,0%

This first approach for a preliminary assessment of the seismic vulnerability of Oran city consisted in

the typological analysis of the existing building stock according the RISK-EU method (from a

vulnerability point of view). The RISK-EU method assesses the vulnerability by the investigator

judgment of some structural and architectural characteristics known to have an impact on the

vulnerability. These factors, according to the situation, have an impact on the vulnerability increasing

(positive value of Vm) or its decreasing (negative value of Vm). Some of the modifying factors are

indeed easy to identify: number of floors, plan and elevation irregularity, position in the block,

buildings of different height, staggered floors, roof type. Some others are indeed difficult to estimate

from only an outside visual screening: structural system (distance between walls, connection between

walls, diaphragms, connection between horizontal structures and walls), soft story, retrofitting

interventions). For the latter category, we decided to use intervals accounting for the variability

associated to the unknown characteristics.

The itinerary survey allowed to identify that the most common building types according to the RISK-

EU classification, are M 3. 3, M3.4 and RC3.2 (Table 1). The M3.3 type, which corresponds to

composite steel and masonry slabs, is the most frequent. M3.3 buildings in Oran are most often mid-

rise, 3 to 5 floors (Table 2), regular in elevation, with a generally flat roof.

a

b

c

Figure 2. Typical M3.3 buildings (a&b) and details of slab(c)

Table 2. Number of floors class distribution of M3.3 type

Number of floors class distribution of M3.3 type

Number of floors Number %

Low (1 or 2) 95 21,7%

Medium (3, 4 or 5) 315 72,1%

High (6 or more) 27 6,2%

Total M3.3 437 100,0%

Table 3. Roof type Distribution

Type Number %

Flat 366 83,8%

sloped 71 16,2%

Total 437 100,0%

4. APPLICATION TO VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT IN THE EL-EMIR DISTRICT

After the typology definition and the assignment of the possible V* values, a preliminary vulnerability

assessment of a district situated within the studied perimeter has been conducted (Figure 1). The

objective is to collect, for all the 958 buildings of the district, the information allowing to estimate the

modifying factors Vm. The Table 1 lists the results of this analysis with the average sum value of the

modifying factors ∆Vm, and also the average of the final vulnerability index V for each building type.

With the exception of the RC2 and RC3 categories which have negative ∆Vm, the others are positive.

The highest average modulation increase is found for the RC1 type, which results also in average

vulnerability indices V higher than those obtained for masonry types M3.3 and M3.4 (Table 1, Figure

3 and Figure 4), despite their relatively more recent period of construction.

Table 1. Average values of the modifying factors sum and vulnerability final index

Type RISK-EU Description Number % ∆Vm

Average

average

Vulnerability

Index V

Masonry 827 86,51% 0,148 0,823

M1.1 rubble stone 5 0,52% 0,083 0,956

M3.3 Composite steel and masonry slabs 546 57,11% 0,141 0,845

M3.4 Reinforced concrete slabs 276 28,87% 0,162 0,776

Reinforced concrete 129 13,49% 0,226 0,861

RC1 Reinforced concrete frame without

earthquake resistant design. 120 12,55% 0,247 0,891

RC2

Reinforced concrete frame with

moderate level of earthquake resistant

design

6 0,63% -0,127 0,411

RC3 Reinforced concrete frame with high

level of earthquake resistant design 1 0,10% -0,120 0,204

RC4 Reinforced concrete walls without

earthquake resistant design 2 0,21% 0,200 0,744

Whole sample 956 100% 0,158 0,828

From a vulnerability index point of view, the RC1 and M3.3 types are found to be the most vulnerable.

The histogram of ∆Vm distribution histograms displayed in Figure 4 confirms their aggravating

character. For the whole sample, the ∆Vm sum of the modifying factors is centered around a value of

0.16, and vary mainly from 0.08 to 0.28. The rare RC2 and RC3 buildings exhibit a negative ∆Vm.

M3.3 distribution looks very similar to the one of the whole sample with a mode at 0.20 value. The

RC1 histogram confirms the much higher values: ∆Vm vary from 0.12 to 0.36 for RC1, with about

one quarter of RC1 buildings having ∆Vm=0.36.

Figure 3: Distribution of RISK-EU vulnerability index values according the building type

Figure 4: Distribution of the Sum of the modifying factors (∆Vm) according to building type.

The modifying factors of the studied buildings have thus a very significant aggravating impact. As

displayed in Figure 5, the principal factors are: the number of floors, the plan irregularity, the position

within the block, the existence of a soft story, and the presence of staggered floors. The "number of

floors" factor affects more the masonry buildings, which is observed also for the "staggered floors"

factor. The soft story factor concerns indeed the majority of buildings whatever their type because of

the commercial nature of the district. Generally, the ground floor of a commercial use is characterized

by a large open space and great story height. The building position plays a higher aggravating role for

masonry buildings due to the small size of blocks, that result in a higher number of buildings located

in block corners.

Figure 5: Distribution of the main modifying factors increasing the vulnerability

5. CONCLUSION

This study has confirmed both the helpfulness of the RISK-EU approach for a preliminary, global

vulnerability assessment at an urban scale, and the primary importance of typology. This approach can

cover large urban areas with relatively low costs and human resources. The typological study has

allowed to identify easily the major building types for the city of Oran, according to the RISK-UE

classification. However, the further details linked to the modifying factors did prove to have a very

noticeable importance, since they result in average vulnerability index increase around 0.16. The

origin of this vulnerability increase could be identified for each building type. The average values per

type are proposed as reference values for further studies or to complement existing data.

AKCNOWLEDGEMENT

The USTO MB-Oran (Algeria) University funded this research project. Special thanks are due to S. Lagomarsino

(DICAT, Genoa) and C. Negulescu (BRGM) for their assistance in the use of the RISK-EU method.

REFERENCES

Applied Technology Council, Earthquake damage evaluation data for California, ATC-13, Redwood City, CA,

1985, 334 pp.

CETE Méditerranée. (2008). Comparaison de méthodes qualitatives d’évaluation de la vulnérabilité des

constructions aux séismes. Plan séisme - action 2.4.7. Guide des méthodes de diagnostics de la

résistance des bâtiments aux séismes (Etude). www.planseisme.fr/IMG/pdf/comparaison_methodes_

vulnerabilite_sommaire.pdf.

CGS, 2010. Etude d’aléa sismique de la région d’Oran-Arzew, Rapport Final. Centre National de Recherche

Appliquée en Génie-Parasismique, Alger, 78pp.

Giovinazzi, S & Lagomarsino, S. (2004), A macroseismic method for vulnerability assessment of buildings,

proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Vancouver, B.C., Canada,

August 1-6, 2004, Paper ID 896.

Guéguen, P., Michel, C., LeCorre, L., 2007. A simplified approach for vulnerability assessment in moderate-to-

low seismic hazard regions: application to Grenoble (France). Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering. 5:3,

467–490Lagomarsino, S., Giovinazzi, S., 2006.

Macroseismic and mechanical models for the vulnerability and damage assessment of current buildings. Bulletin

of Earthquake Engineering . 4:4, 415–443.

Lespès, R. (1939). Oran: étude de géographie et d’histoire urbaines. Bel Horizon (2003). 510pp

Manuel López Marinas, J., Salord, R., 2001. La période sismique oranaise de 1790 à la lumière des archives

espagnoles. (traduction de l’Espagnol de l’étude des auteurs Juan Manuel López Marinas et Rosa

Salord). Université des sciences et dela technologie Houari-Boumediene.

Milutinovic Z. V. and G. S. Trendafiloski (2003). WP4: Vulnerability of current buildings. Risk-UE project

Handbook. September 2003. Risk-UE project report. 111 pp.